Democrats perceived Mr. Akin as the weakest general election candidate because he has a 12-year congressional track record that's ripe for excavation and wears his Christian faith on his sleeve. That can sometimes be unbecoming, as it was last year when he slipped that "at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred of God."...

In 1996, Neumann said, “If I were elected God for a day, homosexuality wouldn’t be permitted.” Years later he clarified the remark, explaining he would not want God’s job.

Neumann has also suggested he wouldn’t hire an openly gay staffer. “If somebody walks in to me and says, ‘I’m a gay person, I want a job in your office,’ I would say that’s inappropriate, and they wouldn’t be hired because that would mean they are promoting their agenda,” Neumann said in an address to the Christian Coalition. “The gay and lesbian lifestyle (is) unacceptable, lest there be any question about that.”

It's one thing to oppose same-sex marriage, quite another to promote employment discrimination against gay people. Even worse is banning homosexuality. Neumann knows that can't be done in America. We have constitutional rights that prevent legislators from outlawing homosexual sex, and, yes, if you got a couple more Scalias on the Supreme Court, it might conceivably overrule the precedent, but Neumann wished to end "homosexuality," not merely sexual activities between same-sex partners — the state of feeling sexual desire for a person of the same sex. That is, he's objecting to the inner thoughts and feelings of the human individual, and he knows he'd need to be God to accomplish that end. And so the legislator imagines himself as God.

God save us from legislators who fantasize about being God. When I think of what conservatism means, I think of limited government, respect for decisionmaking in the private sphere, and modesty about re-engineering human nature. And when I think about God, I don't go wishing he'd made the world a different way. And ironically, attempting to appeal to Christians, Neumann spouted blasphemy: God should have done a better job. So you think God goofed when he made homosexuals? You're telling gay people they're mistakes, and you'd like to nudge God out of the way and eradicate those mistakes. Presumably, the Neumann God wouldn't smite the homosexuals — Sodom-style — but somehow cause them not to exist. And yet, Neumann is, of course, opposed to abortion. Embryos are creatures of God, who challenges us to accept what He has willed into existence and to respond with love and humility to the burdens He has laid upon us.

There are gay people in the world, how do you respond to that trial? Do you love them and respect them as human beings, entitled to equality and autonomous decisionmaking? Or do you run for office, promoting yourself to religious folk by fantasizing about having the power of God and using it to eliminate people toward whom they feel animosity? It's bad religion and it's bad politics. The mask slipped, and what we saw was not conservative.

“If somebody walks in to me and says, ‘I’m a gay person, I want a job in your office,’ I would say that’s inappropriate, and they wouldn’t be hired because that would mean they are promoting their agenda,” Neumann said

Not everyone thinks of homosexuality as an identity; many think of it as a behavior. It's the difference between being a black man, and being a bicyclist.

Gayness as an identity is a new thing, since the nineteenth century--you can read the citations in Judge Vaughan Walker's ruling on Proposition 8. Men having sex with men, and women with women, has always been with us, but was only recently considered an identity.

"Divided by a common language" is what is going on here. Neumann literally could not understand Andy's arguments, and vice versa, as they do not mean the same thing when they say "gay".

"If somebody walks in to me and says, ‘I’m a pedophile, I want a job in your office,’ I would say that’s inappropriate, and they wouldn’t be hired because that would mean they are promoting their agenda..."

Pedophiles have not yet been accepted as a sexual identity, hence this statement is not offensive. They are intensely lobbying for that status.

""If somebody walks in to me and says, ‘I’m a polygamist, I want a job in your office,’ I would say that’s inappropriate, and they wouldn’t be hired because that would mean they are promoting their agenda..."

Same with polygamists, and they are riding the coattails of gay rights activism to the same end.

Since these two are considered behaviors, Neumann would not be accused of hate and bias. When they come to be considered identities, he would be.

Let me state explicitly, for the stupid, that I am not equating gayness with the other two.

The weird thing isn't that people can say the most hateful disgusting things about gay people. The weird thing is that people nod their head and say, "yeah, he's a Christian."

Same thing when the AFA guy said that there should be an Underground Railroad to steal kids away from gay parents. On the one hand, this is an utterly disgusting thing to say. On the other hand, he's a popular and influential Christian, and that's just what they do. Howdie-do! Have fun with the kidnappings!

Ann, you've shown courage and a Mother's love in this blog post. I do believe God made gay people and I've said this before, to assign blame or sin to being gay is not a good representation of love in action. I understand that Christians are following Biblical teachings as they interpret them. That's their right and privilege.

But to have an elected official publicly say such a thing is frightening and has such a person has no place in our secular government.

If he is the Republican candidate, I think Tammy Baldwin is a clear winner.

Althouse: "And ironically, attempting to appeal to Christians, Neumann spouted blasphemy: God should have done a better job. So you think God goofed when he made homosexuals?"

This is of your own invention. I'm no Neumann fan, nor in agreement with his statements, but this is just bullshit. Of course to get there, you had to start here:

"but Neumann wished to end "homosexuality," not merely sexual activities between same-sex partners — the state of feeling sexual desire for a person of the same sex."

"homesexuality" refers to both the feeling of attraction and/or the act. There is nothing in that quote, or any Neumann quote, that suggests he was referring to both uses of the word.

This conclusion "Neumann wished to end "homosexuality," not merely sexual activities between same-sex partners — the state of feeling sexual desire for a person of the same sex. That is, he's objecting to the inner thoughts and feelings of the human individual, and he knows he'd need to be God to accomplish that end. And so the legislator imagines himself as God." is intellectually dishonest. It's how morons argue. Make shit up and go from there. Sad.

I wish the so-called social conservatives would form their own party. They make case for limited government and economic moderation incredibly unpalatable for a plurality of average Americans. And when it gets down to it, they don't give a damn about economic ruin or oppressive government just so long as they can keep men from marrying each other and girls from having abortions. (Cedarford and Andy R. are the opposite sides of the same coin -- people who aren't happy unless they're running your life.)

Gabriel Hanna, well said. It really is an issue of identity. That's why there's such a huge divide, as each side assumes the other holds the same perspective on this.

If being gay is about identity, then being anti-gay is bigotry. If being gay is behavior (with some especially tempted to this behavior), then it's about ethics.

What's interesting is how being anti-gay is tied to racism, yet it's precisely the rejection of race as identity that causes Christian theology to see racism as sin.

Race is not identity. Thus it is wrong to judge someone based on race, one should judge on behavior.

This isn't to argue either side of things, just to agree that the impasse of conversation has to do with the very definition of identity.

It's precisely why I respect Andy R's advocacy but think he's very offtrack in actual application. Using terms like bigot is very effective if it's actual bigotry at work and people want to avoid that.

But it's the very avoidance of bigoted assumptions (exterior factors define identity) that leads Christians to see homosexuality as temptation/behavior.

"Christians" like Neumann give the brand a bad name. Respect for the dignity of all human beings is essential Christianity - second only to the love of God. This does not mean approval of sin but rather the charitable instruction, which is best made through example or in respectful one on one conversation with a friend. There are plenty of heterosexual sins just as grave, but picking on homosexuals is socially easy in the "Christian" world. That's an explanation BTW, not an excuse for this too common behavior.

As for the "out" job applicant IMO much depends on their manner and what the job entails. If there is a "chip on the shoulder" aggressiveness it's substantially different from a personal aside offered in passing.

"If someone walks in to my business and says "I'm a gay person, and I want a job," I would not hire that person. That's a drama waiting to happen."

Yeah, well, that's Neumann's way of picturing it, not any real person. What he's saying there is probably: I don't have to worry about discriminating against gay people, because they should keep their sexuality to themselves, and the only way I'd know they were gay is if they announced it, which they shouldn't do, so any time it could be an issue that I'd be discriminating against a gay person, they wouldn't be just a gay person, but an announcer of gayness and there's something wrong with a job applicant like that independent of gayness per se.

I've heard that argument many times. That's how these people justify discrimination. It's a stock argument, and a lame one.

OK Ann, have it your way, bullshit it is. You are sometimes your own worst enemy, I suppose the same could be said for me. Obviously my interpretation of your blogpost was incorrect, but it would've been nice itf it were to have come from a mothers love as well as other factors, oh well.

"You would refuse to hire any man who referenced having a wife during an interview? What if you hired a woman and she put a copy of her wedding photo on her desk? Would you fire her?"

This is a great question and a big reason why I tend to stay out of this whole debate. The trouble is that the Church in general, especially Evangelicals, have made marriage into being part of identity and belonging. I was single for 34 years and there's a decided bias against singles and a decided implication that one is a "real person" when one is married with kids. Thus there are huge amounts of sermon series based on marriages, even as divorces skyrocket--precisely because marriage has been emphasized as identity and so many people abandon a marriage when they're feeling less than fulfilled. They want to shack up with someone who they think can make them feel more of who they want to be--finding their identity in a spouse rather than in Christ.

Which is to say that I stay out of these debates because the Evangelical theology of marriage and sexuality has significant problems of its own, even as I tend to agree with the basic conclusions.

I'd rather focus on getting the Church to move away from marriage/heterosexuality as identity instead of arguing against people who want to express the same values according to their own attractions.

@Paddy O:Using terms like bigot is very effective if it's actual bigotry at work and people want to avoid that.

Actually, I think it is more often feces flinging: you call someone a bigot because you do not wish other people to give them a hearing. You deny that reasonable people can agree with a bigot. Like "liar", "bigot" is an inherent condemnation.

Andy does not wish to convert people like Neumann to his way of seeing things. He wants people like Neumann cast out of society. If he wanted to persuade Neumann he'd first look for common ground. Instead, he prefers to declare his tribal affiliation by flinging feces at an outsider, watching to see who else does, or doesn't, so he can decide if he needs to fling feces at them.

Looking at it another way, I'm not certain if I walked into Tammy Baldwin's office and said "I'm straight hire me" she would say "GREAT! Here's your office and credit card!"

She would probably not hire me because of the awkwardness of my introduction, unless no other person applied for the position in a more traditional manner, which used to mean not talking about getting your freak on immediately.

"There are plenty of heterosexual sins just as grave, but picking on homosexuals is socially easy in the "Christian" world. That's an explanation BTW, not an excuse for this too common behavior."

It seems to me that Jesus made a big deal about 1. looking to your own sins first (you have many, so keep working, all your life), and 2. loving other people.

There are so many sins from the Christian perspective, and why would someone who claims to be Christian focus on ONE particular sin, a sin that he's not even TEMPTED toward, and try to advance himself in the world by stimulating others to focus on the sin of the other? How is that Christianity?!

It's bad religion and bad politics! How dare a person seek governmental power on an agenda like that? And in the process, he reveals a fantasy of being God!

Neumann is an exterminationist who is actively wishing for a genocide of gay people. Maybe I could sit down with him for a nice tea and scones and we could have a friendly chat about how he wants God to destroy me and how I don't want to be destroyed. I bet we would come to a delightful agreement in some middle area based on our common agreement and understanding.

I don't really giving a shit about the gay issue in this race. Baldwin has frightening politics, period. Just look at her behavior during the recall. Roll back those Althouse videos of her at the state Capitol.

"but it would've been nice itf it were to have come from a mothers love as well as other factors, oh well."

Bullshit again. I totally disagree with you. I'm analyzing real life according to principles that I will defend. I'm not promoting the self-interest of my friends and family, and by saying that I am, you are setting aside what I am arguing and assigning to it a fallacy that does not exist.

I've never argued that people should agree with me because of I have a personal stake in that matter. That's an irrelevant factor and by imposing it on me, you are failing to engage with my argument.

I very much object to your putting something into my argument that I don't put there, and I want people to engage with the real argument, not think: Well, no son or daughter of mine is gay, so I don't need to take that so seriously, or whatever sort of thinking is behind your remark.

You think you're saying something that makes you seem kindly, but it's not and I'm calling you on it.

" ... why would someone who claims to be Christian focus on ONE particular sin, a sin that he's not even TEMPTED toward, and try to advance himself in the world by stimulating others to focus on the sin of the other? How is that Christianity?!"

It's not Christianity rather it's self-righteousness: a very common trap for all religious/zealous people.

"It seems to me that Jesus made a big deal about 1. looking to your own sins first (you have many, so keep working, all your life), and 2. loving other people."

Yes! But those aren't the only deals he emphasized. The big passage for this is the adulterous woman being stoned. Don't cast the first stone to the men was followed by the admonishment to the woman to not sin anymore.

Point 1 is applied to all of us, not just the people condemning others of sin. Being called out as a sinner doesn't make the sin not a sin.

What's the role of government in responding to such issues? Well, that's much more than a conservative/liberal divide. Liberals want to fix all sorts of behaviors and sins. They just have a different list. The justifications all sound the same, it's just a difference in how people distinguish identity from behavior. "I am a smoker" is now seen as a behavior, not as identity. "I am fat" is a confession of sin in our do whasociety, not an expression of being.

"I am Christian" is seen as a religious testimony, but if it's an identity too, then don't be bigoted about the way people express their identity, and identity goes well beyond mere affirmation of a deity.

I've done queer activism in 4 different cities, in two or three countries, depending on how you count.

I'm also doing some Chick-fil-A stuff in meatspace, at the moment. And I'm sure all of you would be thrilled that I'm working with some leftist Christian theology students on the Chick-fil-A stuff. And I manage not to call them bigots or be rude or anything.

And now my flight is boarding. I'll catch you all later during my layover in Las Vegas.

Despite the fact that what Neumann said is wrong on an ethical level, just from raw politics he needs to be gone. There are better people to vote into office than him, especially now. You only get to make gaffes of this size if you are in a safe area or have a big name.

"Oh, how courageous of you.Now... what about the millions of others who think and act just like him?"

Well, gee, Marry, that's easy. By extension, these millions who "think and act just like him," if indeed millions there be, also have the wrong "attitude toward power and shouldn't be trusted (other than to lose elections)."

It seems to me that Jesus made a big deal about 1. looking to your own sins first (you have many, so keep working, all your life), and 2. loving other people.

It seems to me your ignorance on who Jesus was and what he said is kind of staggering.

But let me help you. You're pretending that Jesus somehow instructed us to ignore sins (This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out His commands. This is love for God: to obey His commands. Especially sins you don't like being called sins.

Sort of a pointless post because Neumann is not going to win.....he will probably come in third and most likely fourth.

1) The Dem crossover vote, which is overrated anyway, will be diminished significantly because there is a heated Dem primary for Tammy Baldwin's old house seat -- where the most fervant liberals in the state live. There are also Dem primaries for some solid Dem state assembly seats in Milwaukee. You can't cross-party vote in a primary election, even for different races.

2) Mark Neumann is not popular with Scott Walker's most loyal supporters because of how he acted in 2010.

Gabe Hanna said: If he wanted to persuade Neumann he'd first look for common ground. Instead, he prefers to declare his tribal affiliation by flinging feces at an outsider

Well said. I wish that more of us would look for the common ground in discussions. I've had good luck discussing this issue with my socially conservative friends by pointing to the problems with their arguments (politely - example, that the biblical quotes used are from sections that also forbid a lot of things that Christians think nothing of, like eating shellfish), or by making the socially conservative argument for gay marriage (that is, marriage is good for citizens and good for society; we benefit from having more married among us and there is reason to beleive that this would hold true for gays as well), or the just pure liberatarian argument (how does this hurt you or me?).

I'm not saying that I'm changing minds, but I'm getting through, and I'm leaving with the hope that they are thinking a little bit more about the issue, and questioning it. If more gay marriage advocates approached it this way, I think that we'd be in a much different place on this issue.

"If someone came into my office and announced their sexual orientation and then asked for a job I'd toss them out regardless of whether they were gay or straight."

Andy: You would refuse to hire any man who referenced having a wife during an interview?

Not the same thing. And if a man referenced having a husband during an interview, it would not affect my judgement of his quals.

But announcing your gay sexual orientation is an indicator that you will be a trouble-maker. That you will crystalize every issue as anti-gay bigotry. I don't want hyperbolic bigoted drama queens like Andy in my office.

By the way, if I can estimate, probably about no one ever has walked into a job and said, "I'm a homosexual worker and I would like one gay job please."

Perhaps not in those words, but you certainly present as someone whose self-loathing over your mental disorder presents as uncontrollable assholery toward others, which any reasonable boss would appropriately want to avoid.

Fair enough, Jay. So what about you? Would you see it criminalized in the US? If not, why not? And if so (assuming you are feeling generous enough to elaborate a little), what sorts of punitive measures seem appropriate to you?

If more gay marriage advocates approached it this way, I think that we'd be in a much different place on this issue.

As you can see by AndyR gay activists don't want to be in a different place on this issue. In the current circumstance they can pretend this issue - which effects very few people in relatively small ways - and pretend they're marching on Washington with MLK or even better rallying with Malcolm X.

"Most states base their polygamy laws on the which provides that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense."

Yeah, well, that's Neumann's way of picturing it, not any real person. What he's saying there is probably: I don't have to worry about discriminating against gay people, because they should keep their sexuality to themselves, and the only way I'd know they were gay is if they announced it, which they shouldn't do, so any time it could be an issue that I'd be discriminating against a gay person, they wouldn't be just a gay person, but an announcer of gayness and there's something wrong with a job applicant like that independent of gayness per se.

I've heard that argument many times. That's how these people justify discrimination. It's a stock argument, and a lame one.

That is not my argument. Not even remotely. Where on earth did that come from?

"The ban on polygamy originated in English Common Law. In England polygamy was repudiated because it deviated from Christian norms; marriage, it was believed, properly existed only between one man and one woman. In 1866, for example, in the seminal case of Hyde v. Hyde, 1 L.R.-P. & D., an English court remarked that "the law of [England was] … adapted to the Christian marriage, and it is wholly inapplicable to polygamy."

I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what is the evolutionary purpose of gay people. I can understand why heterosexuals exist. Why do gay people exist? What is their evolutionary purpose? God only knows?

Is gayness a 'reproductive flaw' that occurs during reproduction?

As a 'PRACTICING HETERO' are homosexuals useful and necessary to the survivaql of my species? MAYBE they are? How can I tell?

In answer to your first question, I have no idea how Jesus would weigh in on many contemporary American political questions, including the polygamy issue.

Me personally? I struggle with the issue, because so much of the polygamist tradition seems keyed on coercing underaged girls into sexual relationships. So I certainly would keep that criminalized, and harshly penalized. As, I assume, would all sane people?

As for polygamy between consenting adults? No, I don't favor criminalization. Imprisonment for a man and three women living together, all by their choice? No thanks.

I admit this is difficult because it isn't always easy to tell when coercion has taken place, here. But Presuming that an adult was coerced when she was younger, is a bridge too far.

Neumann just wants gays back in the closet where they belong. That seems to be the concensus among a lot of socons.

And you can't blame them there. After all, they have this book where some nomadic sheepherders declared homosexuality a sin some 3500-4000 years ago. They've got all the intellectual heft they need to support their moral positions. And these sheepherders beleived in talking snakes too, just like many modern Christians. You can't doubt the moral assertions of people that believe in talking snakes and such.

The Professor stands by her guns and she wins again. We have to take people as they are and get the best from that situation.

I read in the Onion where Bachmann plans to solve this gay problem by shipping all of the gay folks back to Africa, Oops, that's the solution for the Negroid defect that God also accidentally made on a bad day.

I say we offer them a Coke and smile, and then we all sit down together and share a Chick-Fil-A to celebrate life while it lasts.

Jay, It's not about ignoring sins but about the selection of the easy target. If Neumann was talking about difficult subjects like divorce or premarital sex that is closer to home for many Christians I'd be more impressed. Otherwise it's just within group pandering/preening.

One of the best treatments I ever saw of homosexuality in a Christian context was by Michael Voris who spoke eloquently on the nature of the same sex temptation as an especially challenging cross to bear. Meaning that, for the rare person who takes up that cross, God has/will extend the exceptional strength/grace required to bear it as He does for each of us in our own struggles. Further the successful perseverance in the faith of such a person could be expected to be an exceptionally fruitful spiritual witness. Respectful, charitable dignified exposition of the Christian position on homosexuality does exist, it's just not found in political circles very often (or in blog comment threads).

Andy

Anyone self-identifying as a "lefty Christian" is not likely to be orthodox. So too anyone identifying as a conservative first. Religion must come before politics, over-interest in politics is contrary to the faith: it's too worldly. Authentic Christianity is actually a very difficult life long pursuit symbolized by taking up the cross. When it gets mixed with politics it gets distorted.

You have no idea what God has done, and acting like you know for the purpose of making a political argument is stupid and possibly blasphemous.

If you really believe in God, why aren't you afraid to say things like that?

There are some Christian denominations, particularly Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, who think they have a monopoly on how the Bible should be interpreted. So they're quite comfortable making statements like that.

@Sunslut7:I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what is the evolutionary purpose of gay people. I can understand why heterosexuals exist. Why do gay people exist? What is their evolutionary purpose?

Not everything evolution produces has a "purpose". Attributes that are detrimental but do little harm can persist a long time, and some are neutral.

Besides, worker ants and bees don't reproduce, but they take care of their mother and their mother's reproductively capable offspring, and the reproductive castes couldn't do without them. Workers are adaptive even if they don;t reproduce.

"If you really believe in God, why aren't you afraid to say things like that?"

Excellent point: who knows why some are tempted toward this sin and others toward that one? We cannot presume to know Gods plans. Certainly He wishes salvation for all and makes that possible for all. We who are in need of His mercy for our own failings must not ridicule others, but rather encourage them not to give up. Yes the divide is huge and the faith can not be compromised, but charity in all things is a requirement for Christians. We forget in the anonymous internet that real people read and reflect on what we write. This is an opportunity for providing spiritual mercy, not for sinful mocking. I struggle with this as much as anyone BTW - it's way too easy to spout harsh contemptuous comments but it's not properly speaking Christian.

There are some Christian denominations, particularly Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, who think they have a monopoly on how the Bible should be interpreted. So they're quite comfortable making statements like that.

No, they believe the Bible should be taken literally, no big mystery, but the idea that the right to make judgments about life is reserved only for the Lefties is something the Lefties won't allow to be infringed.

No, they believe the Bible should be taken literally, no big mystery, but the idea that the right to make judgments about life is reserved only for the Lefties is something the Lefties won't allow to be infringed.

Yes, they believe the Bible should be taken literally, and believe that there is no room for disagreement on that score. Everyone has the right to make judgments about life. Whether they have the right to impose those judgments on others is a separate question. I was just trying to explain how someone might be comfortable saying that "God no more 'made homosexuals' than he 'made murderers.'"

And by the way, evangelicals' "literal" interpretation of the Bibile has changed over time. Southern Baptists used to believe that the Bibile prohibits interracial marriage. They've backed away from that. If the Bible means what it says and says what it means, how you explain that change of position?

All of this aside, I think the interesting thing about this post is the discussion of a Democratic strategy to assist people like Neumann in securing the Republican party nomination.

We cannot presume to know Gods plans. Certainly He wishes salvation for all and makes that possible for all.

A big "No!" to both points, Dave.

We may not know God's "plans" but we either know His moral requirements for us through His revelation, or we should just quit while we're ahead, 'cause it's just too damn tough otherwise.

As for making salvation "possible for all", that really is a Semi-Pelagian/Molinist view of grace. An Augustinian/Calvinist view says that the world is riven with sin, and God in His stern majesty shows His mercy by saving His elect. And only His elect.

I bring up what may be to the rest of you pedantic theological distinctions because they are apposite in understanding the worldview of someone like Neumann. It's basically Calvinistic. The scandal that such views present to the modern moral mind isn't that the gays are damned, it's that pretty much ALL THE REST OF US are, too.

Like it or not, however, such thought is a large & vital part of Christian history, and it needs to be understood on its own terms.

And it is sad to see so many people taking the bait of finding some extreme wack-job and presenting him as mainstream or otherwise representative of any significant proportion of people. What is this, a try-out for some job on MSNBC?

How about a post about someone like Maxine Waters, bringing up some wack-job thing she has said, and presenting her as representative of many liberals and Democrats?

I disagree, obviously. I'm Catholic BTW and take the view that Divine grace is infinite and possible for all (low standard). Of course many reject it and "few are chosen" because we must "enter through the narrow gate". Recall that the rejection of grace by the fallen is a necessary condition for just punishment.

I don't respect Calvins views as I find them contradictory and presumptive.

"If you really believe in God, why aren't you afraid to say things like that?"

Ann, you criticize your commenters for not upping their game, but there are times in which you don't rise very high either.

The doctrine of revelation says that there are ways in which people can speak of God, and assume things about God's opinion. There are volumes and volumes and volumes and whole libraries dedicated to answering the question you just asked.

It's like you think religious thinking started in this century and prior to this has been more like unthoughtful assumptions.

You're also asking the precise question that Pilate, and others, asked of Jesus. What is truth? How do we know? And who is this guy who says he can speak for God?

It's a good question, I suppose, but there have been answers for 1000s of years.

I'm not defending the vocal minority by any means; rather I'm saying that Neumann appears to be just making the easy conservative political point. It does not impress me as Christian. Maybe I'm wrong - since I don't live in WI and have heard only a bit about this particular pol, but it appears to me to be just about scoring the cheap point.

Firstly, if someone announces personal info that isn't relevant to work during an interview, it really would be a good indication that this is going to be a problem later. It could be sexual orientation, or political orientation, or one's religion or anything else. Not hiring someone who indicates they may have a chip on their shoulder is smart, not bigoted. And if there's not a chip but the apparent need to explain that you go to wife swap parties or are a furry in your spare time, well that's just *weird*.

""If you really believe in God, why aren't you afraid to say things like that?" The doctrine of revelation says that there are ways in which people can speak of God, and assume things about God's opinion. There are volumes and volumes and volumes and whole libraries dedicated to answering the question you just asked."

I stand by my question. I have doubts about the sincerity of the professed belief in God based on the kinds of things people are saying about God. I think if they really thought there was a God out there who could judge them and do things to them, filled with all sorts of unknown and unknowable ideas and powers and who knows what else, they would be afraid to purport to speak for him.

Sure, there are some special folks like Jesus, but I heard him saying things like "Judge not, lest you be judged."

Do these people today, with their jackassery about gay people really think they're like Jesus. They don't sound much like him.

I don't believe that they really believe or they'd be behaving much differently. Unless they are just stupid. Am I giving them too much credit for not being stupid?

The "born that way" and "God made a mistake" arguments are wrong on a number of counts. Substitute something else and see how the argument holds up, because it doesn't and it won't.

Are Downs persons born that way? Yes, they are. If we could cure that, would we do so? Yes, we would. Any number of "born that way" conditions are ones that we do not automatically view as right and good and intended by God, other than in the sense of ultimate sovereignty.

I'm short. If there was the option of being taller, maybe if medicine was such that puberty was watched closely and controlled so that the signals were subverted so that we grew short girls taller, would we say "born that way" and "God made a mistake" by making me short?

These are stupid arguments. And I don't think that they are arguments made in good faith. Rather, they're arguments made to attack people who believe in God.

"Born that way" means nothing at all. It really doesn't.

And the club to wack Christians by "are you saying God made a mistake" is one done in bad faith.

Sure, you're going to catch people who haven't thought it through and maybe you'll win, but that doesn't change the weakness of the argument.

It's also a weak argument since how we're *born* is sinners, damned and going to hell. Our natures are sinful, so need to be opposed, fought down, and subdued.

Not that this part of Christian doctrine is popular these days, (messes up everyone's sexual license and excuses, after all) but if one was pretending to make an actual argument on doctrine, "born that way" fails as profoundly as a claim to moral rightness as it does in the form of "God made a physical mistake."

It's pretty early in Genesis when God tells us where homosexuality comes from. It's essentially a curse for many humans becoming pagans and doing nasty stuff including men sticking their penises in the hole designed for excreting fecal matter.

Also, why does no one talk about how homosexuals suffer from much higher rates of mental disorder, and shorter life spans? They also can not donate blood because of the high risk of it being infected with HIV\AIDS. Sounds like God's judgement to me.

Christians are getting blamed for making this a big issue, but to me it seems like the gay community is singling out Christians. At least Christians don't want to stone gays to death like Muslims are supposed to.

And as for you, Ann, I call bullshit on your denial of self-interestedness. Put kindly, you're the fish who doesn't perceive the water, IOW you're soaking in it. You don't take a disinterested breath, though you may play at it.

You are also chutzpahtastic to offer critique on the grounds of blasphemy. What faith were you raised in again?

Agreed however, this Neumann sounds like a naif and that type is a political loser. Even if it's the last thing on his mind, and had had it dragged out of him in dogged questioning, it was inartful for many of the reasons you cite.

If I cared, I would say the quote is rather old. People, delete your Facebooks now. You will eat every lolcats moment someday, as the post shows.

I see your point - original sin (which I do believe in), inclines all toward death. Check. I do not dispute that all. I mean to say is that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to justify everyone. Whether everyone gets a good invitation to the wedding is unclear - I think that's your point. Some remain in ignorance - but as the Pope has said even they might be joined to Him through a "Baptism of desire". My point is that I agree that we are naturally inclined away from God and are in desperate need of an active salvation (Christ) which we can not hope to supply ourselves. However we still have choice in cooperating with that grace ("choose life or death" as Moses told the Isrealites). I don't think that makes me Pelagianist. Everyone I believe has to choose the accept or ignore the invitations that God has written throughout creation as Paul said. I don't believe that God would abandon any honest seeker, no matter how steeped in sin they may be. He didn't give up on me, even though I didn't deserve grace.

"Do these people today, with their jackassery about gay people really think they're like Jesus. They don't sound much like him."

Many people who call themselves Christians aren't. You have to be born-again. I've felt the burning fire of God's love and it completely changed my life. I know it's confusing, but you must also understand Satan if you are going to try to understand Christ and those who purport to be his followers.

All a Christian is supposed to do is let people know that homosexuality is not okay and tell them why (like shorter life spans). Trying to fight gay people and stop them from doing what they want is exactly what Satan wants because he loves it when people fight and argue. He's doing a knock up job of it with this disagreement. People need to be allowed to sin, so they will realize their wrongs and fall into the hands of Christ.

Did you see that video on Legal insurrection? It really seems to me like the gay community commits lots of 'jackassery' too. When I talk to a gay person I usually don't say anything - I don't think sex is an appropriate topic to be discussed in public, gay or straight.

"You think that by stepping away from what society calls "Revelation" you step onto intellectual terra firma? One doesn't just step away from God-Thought because, well, because we all think we have, haven't we?"

I'm not presenting any religious answer. I'm talking about politics and calling bullshit on some things that are either specious or phony. I'm trying to help people make decisions about what power-seekers to trust. This is about human behavior.

I'm saying that people who talk about God reveal something about themselves when they say and do things that they wouldn't do if they really believed there was a God.

Can someone help me out here? Is there a commenter that has been saying repeatedly how Christians are idiots for being dumb enough to believe in fairy tales?

Andy,

Christianity is much better thought out than you might realize. Further there is substantial evidence for it, NOT proof of course (I don't mean to say that), but enough to make one at least consider the possibility of God. Don't let the worst of Christianity be your guide.

"Did you see that video on Legal insurrection? It really seems to me like the gay community commits lots of 'jackassery' too. When I talk to a gay person I usually don't say anything - I don't think sex is an appropriate topic to be discussed in public, gay or straight."

And what would Jesus do? Seems to me he didn't say punch back twice as hard or tit for tat or 2 wrongs make a right or they started it....

"Do these people today, with their jackassery about gay people really think they're like Jesus. They don't sound much like him."

No, they don't. And I'd be the absolute first person to argue that and indeed part of my goal in life is to help bring change to that.

At the same time, neither do you. You claim wariness about speaking for God and interpreting Jesus, but Jesus sounds a whole lot like you. We all like Jesus to agree with us, when in fact most everyone found him disagreeable. Sure, he said do not judge, but he also said a lot of other things.

The politicians are idiots, and maybe dumb and maybe malicious. Bloomberg isn't better than any of the anti-gay politicians, just with different issues, and he's not dumb, so there's something else going on. It's absurd, but it's not uniquely absurd. The same mentality is applied to all kinds of issues, defined as good or bad by our particular orientating philosophy.

Stand by your question, and I respect that this is likely a huge question for you in your own thoughts on religion. Indeed, that's likely the biggest question of all. Who can we trust to speak of God and why? There are lots of answers to this question and many of them are very good and thoughtful.

Some people take the evidence and choose to believe someone like Jesus. That means we can't just pick and choose nor can we boil down his teaching to saying "don't judge".

Clearly that's not really the whole of his teaching that got him crucified. Nor the goal for which he was, as Christians assert, resurrected.

There's a lot more going on. And part of that is the assertion that identity is not formed out of our sexuality, economic or national status, race, or gender. If you want to make those the basis of identity, then you're missing what Jesus taught. He said don't judge, but he also said he will.

Well, that's my point. If you really believed, you'd fear the judgment that would come to you. Jesus was always telling people to look to their own sins and to love others. That's a big project, and if you really thought you were going to be judged in the afterlife, how would you behave?

"I'm saying that people who talk about God reveal something about themselves when they say and do things that they wouldn't do if they really believed there was a God"

Of course we'd also say "by their fruits you will know them" meaning if they are authentic in faith they should have actions (good works) and results (a community) in keeping with the faith. If not then you have to wonder of the claim of faith is true. I've heard preachers say if Christianity was a crime would you be arrested? Could you be convicted? In others words is their enough evidence

Isn't this the only reason anyone seeks political power? Why would anyone want to rule over others, except they thought they knew better what all those others need.

And I think the pontificating is wrong. But the political opinion is not inherently wrong.

In essence, you're arguing for Christian sectarianism. Christians who really believe should not get involved in politics, lest they be judged.

But then you have someone like the Good Samaritan (an exceedingly political parable). He helped the man on the side of the road. Early Christians fed the poor, rescued slaves and the exposed. Refused to sacrifice to the gods.

Later Christians fought against slavery, instituted reforms in prisons and hospitals.

There are thus political actions that serve to protect others and to benefit the needy. There are powers of the state used to even protect people from themselves.

From the Old Testament Prophets on, the religious message of Christians is that the message isn't just religious or sectarian.

So, contra the sectarians (you'd likely very much like Stanley Hauerwas, by the way), there is space within Christian teaching to humbly participate in forms of societal power and in such places pursue the good.

This country gives us all the right to vote and express our orientating philosophies in government.

So, it's a tool even for Christians, who don't have to judge in order to shape policy.

Keeping in mind all the while that just because I say someone else is wrong, doesn't mean I'm better.

"if you really thought you were going to be judged in the afterlife, how would you behave?"

Great post- work out your salvation "with fear and trembling"

"Would you seek political power pontificating about what God wants?!"

Exactly: power is worldly and all these things "are passing away". The pursuit of political power is spiritually dangerous (and rightly suspect). We are called to place our faith in God not in men (or their devices: politics)

I never understood the progressive(not liberal or conservative) idea that someone who owns a business can't hire or fire any employee of their choosing, for any reason what so ever. To infringe even the littlest bit on the business owners "rights" opens the door for any aggreived person to claim discrimination, as we are seeing more and more. "I got fired because I'm black" "I got fired because I'm a woman" "I got fired because I'm queer" "I got fired because I'm fat" "I got fired because I'm too pretty" "I got fired because of the style of clothes I wear"...

I have seen every one of these excuse as a headline of major newspapers...even the I'm too pretty one.

How about this. How about we let the guy who spends the money to hire someone hire whomever the fuck they want? Does that sound fair? If you don't like it, then YOU can hire the aggrieved person.

But you won't, because you can't. The guy with the money can, so it's his choice. Anything less is communism..."Well, you have money, so you HAVE to hire this person."

My Dad was in charge of hiring for the @$%#^#$ city data processing unit. He was told, because of EEO regulations tht he would have to hire this many minorities to be in compliance with the regulations. He told the city that he would not hire ANYONE, that was unqualified, just because of their skin color, the job was to important. And he didn't, for 10 years, until a black guy applied that WAS qualified. Dad hired him and bragged about his work at the house.

The point is that smart people look for effective people, and really don't give a shit if you're black, or queer, or fat, or emo, or have tits. Just get the job done, and make some money. The people that do hire and fire on any other basis is just hurting themselves.

Ps.

My Dad is racist, but I blame his Dad and up-bringing. He still hired the black guy and bragged about him because my Dad is also smart.

America was founded on the positive Christian act of George Washington who selflessly walked away from personal power. That kind of sacrifice was rare then and still is today, but it is still possible.

"How silly of me, I should have realized that the ancient Hebrews objections to homosexuality were based on disease control and their concern for mental illness."

An amazing number of silly religious rules are about disease control.

I consider this a proof that there is a God who cares about us like any father who tries to protect his rebellious children from harm by given them rules they aren't mature enough to understand.

Because all the sex rules and all the food preparation rules seem to be about contagion, and who among ancient Hebrews understood contagion?

The Bible says that sexual sin is sin against our own bodies.

And who understood just how well sex worked to spread disease?

Of course, if someone were to argue that this doesn't prove God at all, and that centuries of anecdote and the wisdom of the elderly looking back on their lives could come to the same conclusions and explain the very strict rules about food preparation and waste disposal and how slutty persons got sick more often... that disproves the premise that ancient people couldn't understand or make rules that were about disease.

Cute, but slavery isn't a behavior that spreads disease and can be classed as a mental illness (like homosexuality can).

How silly of me, I should have realized that the ancient Hebrews objections to homosexuality were based on disease control and their concern for mental illness.

They were concerned about the promotion of families and the integrity of them.

They wanted to discourage behavior that would detract from that.

But I don't doubt for an instant they regarded homosexual behavior as abnormal and could help noticing that those who are homosexual have higher VD rates.

So your position now is that Hebrew tribal elders declared homosexuality an abomination based on careful deliberation and logic? It would seem much more likely that they just found the acts icky and declared as much.

-------edutcher said...And there were people - Christians, not Leftists - who crusaded against it for many centuries.And there were Christians that argued against ending slavery. Southern Baptists certainly did.Which proves nothing. It's a generalization to assume every Baptist saw it that way.

No people resents the use of the civil rights metaphor to justify legalizing homosexuality more than blacks.

Actually, it proves a lot. It proves that just about anything can be argued, pro or con, using the Bible.

I've made my points, I'll say this in closing. I think fear and ignorance about homosexuality and homosexuals is what caused it to be condemned in the first place all those centuries ago. It's carried through to this day.

The history of Christianity is filled with actions or proclamations made in the past that are now disowned by modern Christians, the homosexual rights issue is another one of those issues in my mind.

I also probably should mention... fear of the judgement of God on themselves is what motivates people like Fred Phelps.

If I say he's obviously and completely a nutcase, that doesn't change the fact. "God will judge you," doesn't mean that a person acting on the belief they will be judged by God is going to be passive in the world.

It pretty much means the opposite.

After all, we're told that if we're luke-warm God will spit us out of His mouth.

"I never understood the progressive(not liberal or conservative) idea that someone who owns a business can't hire or fire any employee of their choosing, for any reason what so ever. To infringe even the littlest bit on the business owners "rights" opens the door for any aggreived person to claim discrimination, as we are seeing more and more. "I got fired because I'm black" "I got fired because I'm a woman" "I got fired because I'm queer" "I got fired because I'm fat" "I got fired because I'm too pretty" "I got fired because of the style of clothes I wear"."

You need to hang out in last night's alternative history post, where there's no Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Barry Goldwater served 2 terms as Prez.

I've made my points, I'll say this in closing. I think fear and ignorance about homosexuality and homosexuals is what caused it to be condemned in the first place all those centuries ago. It's carried through to this day.

A lot of heat in this post and thread. Althouse returns again and again and predictable partisans strike first and often. Driven, forced or chosen, same sex behavior conjures fire. That's the exegesis of the Sodom story. Krishna left this world from an arrow in the back while attending a same sex bacchanal.

The world today needs to adjust. The gays have rebelled! They are no longer willing scapegoats for relgious to imprision and beat to death.

So who will take their place? MLK and his supporters (including southern whites with a mind and a hear)t took away the easiest ones to scapeoat...why they were color coded for ease in attacking even without the Hoodies.

Then our women's side rose up after noticing that Thaddeus Stevens gave the blacks the vote 60 years before they were allowed to vote. Today the women also expect to become church leaders.

The Jews were the longest lasting scapegoats with an 1800 year run. Then late in 1945 the Warsaw Ghetto arose and fought back. That was the beginning of the Exodus to Palestine where Ben Gurion laid down never again would there bescapegoating of Jews without a fight to the death.

The Irish, the Chinese, and the Mexicans have all played bit scapegoat parts until they rebelled.

So where do we religious guys find replacements which will not fight us back? There are many women who wont challenge us, but that is not much fun because when we beat and kill them then we have to do our own laundry.

How about Alaskans? They are part eskimo and all red neck. That's it! Let's despise and reject Sarah Palin.

No, I do not speak for God. I speak for myself and sometimes, narrowly and briefly, a few or more others. No one can say what God wants, not the greatest saint or sage, not any scriptures, not any laws, not any persons of any station.

Some pontificate thinking they are a god, above reproach.. They cause harm, only. Those are qualified for political office who do not seek it.

My point is that it's wrong to claim any support for homosexuality from any State or Federal Constitution, unless said support was explicitly and knowingly written into that Constitution.

My point is that the dishonest bullshit of inventing "rights" into Constitutions is evil. The fact that people who support "gay rights" are willing to do that makes them, in my mind, evil, and makes me hostile to claims of gay "rights".

Without that dishonestly, I'd be indifferent. But people who refuse to accept the rule of law, and of democracy, are evil, and everything they support is tainted by that evil.

You want the laws to change? Great! Engage in public debate and change people's minds, get them to vote for what you want.

Go to court to get criminal judges to re-write the laws to suit you? Screw you. I'll aggressively vote against you, and work against you, anywhere and everywhere I can. Not because I care about your issue (I don't), but because I care about the rule of law, and democracy, and so long as you're enemies of that, you are my enemies.

"Sure, Jesus turned out the moneychangers and cursed a fig tree, but those were isolated incidents and he did not recommend his followers to go and do likewise."

Gorgeous! Tomorrow, the sun rises in the west.

If as many citizens claimed to be medical doctors or lawyers as claim to be scripture exegetes or theologians, almost the entire population would be behind bars for posturing. To include Althouse, bless her heart.

I've long figured that the ancients weren't keen on homosexuality because it distracted from the life and death struggle of small groups to continue reproducing themselves.

The modern version of that is the concern for strengthening the nuclear family with a mother and a father.

I understand that the effects of SSM on the conventional family are debatable, but quite a lot of the current problems in our society stem from the breakdown of families, and I for one would prefer to see more data before I'm going to sign off on SSM.

Last night I listened to an NPR interview with the new Catholic archbishop of San Francisco. In addition to his doctrinal opposition to SSM he voiced the same concern for the family.

Maybe they condemned it because anal sex led to plague vectoring into the heterosexual population. I wonder how many women went sterile before those "ignorant buffoons" wised up.

The ancient Hebrews called homosexuality an "abomination" because they connected disease to homosexual activity. Riiiiiight. /s off

But seriously, while it is certainly true that ancients recognized the correlations between various behaviors and diseases, they usually got the cause wrong, thinking the disease was God's just punishment.

Does the US recognize a "negative right" to have sex with anyone who's willing to have sex with you? If you think it does, I invite you to have a chat with someone who's been convicted of statutory rape.

Does the US Constitution recognize a right to have sex with ay "adult" you want to? Not that I know of. If you disagree, kindly point us to the Amendment where that right was recognized. It would help if you could include a link to the ratification arguments where the ratifiers acknowledged that that was what they were doing.

Lacking that, no such "right" exists.

And for all you ignoramuses out there, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How about that! If a power's not explicitly granted to the Federal Government, or explicitly denied to the State governments, the States have the power to do whatever they damn well please, bound only by "the People" (that's us voters).

Yes, UP, unlike you, I actually AM aware of the 10th Amendment, and what it says.

Allie Oop wrote:I do believe God made gay people and I've said this before, to assign blame or sin to being gay is not a good representation of love in action.

I believe your theology is faulty. Nowhere in the Christian bible is sin defined a voluntary deviation from righteousness. The orthodox position of that sin and sinfulness is inherent in human nature, making the need of salvation universal. Ergo homosexuality can be both innate and sinful. Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching. As a atheist I have no dog in the hunt, yet I believe I'm correct in my grasp of this element of theology.

There is the famous (and likely fictional) incident of Jesus and the woman discovered in the act of adultery. Jesus did not condemn her, but he did command "Go, and sin no more." Othodoxy would say that, based on the Lord's command, for a Christian adultery is sinful.

There should be no advocacy for rejection of homosexual behavior or any similarly unproductive behaviors. There should also be no advocacy to normalize behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction. There is a reasonable compromise which is capable of preserving individual dignity, and both the rights of couplets and couples, while not simultaneously sabotaging the viability of society and humanity.

It's odd that the Left would pursue the normalization of homosexual behavior. They present themselves as placing the good of the many over the few -- they reject individual dignity. They claim to accept evolutionary principles and yet they reject them selectively. They seem incapable or unwilling of objective review. It's unfortunate that other people are similarly disinclined, but it's less interesting when it happens in the exception.

I don't know how relevant being right about the cause is, if the correlation is correct.

"Punishment from God" could be taken simply as "consequences."

Jump off a cliff and does it matter if it's God who kills you instead of gravity? The rule not to jump off a cliff doesn't magically become a bad rule because no one understands gravity properly.

Sleep around and catch (or pass on) a disease that results in death or sterilization and does it matter if it was God's punishment or microscopic organisms?

I can understand how people might not like being told "punishment from God" is the reason someone dies horribly, but if following religious rules saves you from dying, isn't that a good thing?

Our whole society wants to behave as though there is not and never was any actual reason to restrict sexual behavior, *any* sexual behavior, other than hating that someone else is having fun. Free love and all that.

And the amazing thing is that promiscuity isn't any more "safe" than it ever was. Our modern life almost makes it more destructive than ever before, both destructive to families and to health.

If people wants to talk about homosexuality and evolution, they should hopefully be able to expound on the multiple explanations of how homosexuality and evolution are completely compatible or they will look like idiots that don't know what they are talking about.

creeley wrote (apparently quoting Althouse): "It seems to me that Jesus made a big deal about 1. looking to your own sins first (you have many, so keep working, all your life), and 2. loving other people."

It's been a while since I took a tour of the New Testament, but Ann's precis squares with what I remember.

This is the schtick of the cultural, liberal Christian, akin to arguing that the Sermon on the Mount and the Second Great Commandment are all the New Testament is about.

It pretty much substitutes moral relativity for the First Great Commandment to "Love the Lord your God ..." and, therefore, as observed throughout the NT, obey his law.

One evolutionary argument for homosexuality is that it provides extra support for nieces and nephews which share genes with the homosexual adult making it so that the homosexual individual's genes are more likely to survive to the next generation on account of more adults being available to support fewer genetic offspring.

One might also hypothesize that homosexuality, to the extent that it is inheritable, only manifests due to environmental pressure or womb conditions and usually gets passed on in the expected manner.

All sorts of inherited traits both help people survive and kill them off, depending on conditions. The paradox isn't the least bit unusual, shocking, or even relevant.

Evolution doesn't make a darn bit of difference to natives around here who struggle with obesity and diabetes because their genes are set for extreme survival. They are still fat and diabetic.

Evolutionary theories: Gays have long been women's non-threatening fashion companions as documented among the Indians by the Spanish when they first explored California:

Polygamy is not permitted among these people; the chiefs alone possess the right to take two wives. In all of their towns there was noticed a class of men who lived like women, associated with them, wore the same dress, adorned themselves with beads, earrings, necklaces, and other feminine ornaments, and enjoyed great consideration among their companions. The want of an interpreter prevented us from ascertaining what kind of men they were, or to what office they were designed; all suspected however, a sexual defect or some abuse among those Indians.

What I said was part of my honest response to my reading of the New Testament. (Another part of my response was that Jesus was much stranger than I remembered. For instance, the odd miracle where Jesus tells Peter to pull a coin out of a fish's mouth in Matthew 17.)

I'm not saying that Jesus didn't believe in sin and told his followers that everything was cool so long as they didn't hurt anyone. No. But for a Jewish teacher he didn't spend much time on all the thou-shalt-nots. The commandments were a given. When he taught his followers, he focused on avoiding hypocrisy, minding your business instead of your neighbor's, forgiveness, loving people, and healing people.

Jesus had moral standards for his followers, but not so much for them to enforce upon others. The biggest possible exception I can think of was his unequivocal ruling on divorce: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

One thing gays and their defenders fail to understand is that orthodox Christianity restricts all sexual activity in some way. It's not that Christianity has a particular grudge against gays.

You're an unmarried heterosexual couple? Tough. You're a horny sixteen year-old desperate to masturbate? Tough. You're a married couple who are obsessed with sex for the sheer pleasure of it? Tough.

Perhaps the toughest teaching of Jesus (Matthew 19):

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

The goal is loving God, loving Christ, and loving people. Sex as a transitory pleasure is not part of that picture.

"The orthodox position of that sin and sinfulness is inherent in human nature, making the need of salvation universal."

Yes, well, almost. Not inherent in human nature, but, inherent in existence, in creature-hood. The distinction is substantive. Also, there is further necessary distinction between Sin (to which you refer) and sins. Sin (large S) is a condition of existence. Sins (small s) are conditions of volition.

Sin large S is taking the subject-object split as real. It isn't.

Gratifying that an "atheist" has a grasp of theology. Though you will reject the thought, to me your grasp of this justifies the assertion that there are no atheists - because everyone at least believes at least in their Self. Tillich: God is that which concerns you ultimately.

David RG: So, you jump to conclusions, get self-righteous and sarcastic, then pretend nothing happened and continue to lecture people. Nice.

Who punched your ticket so that you could call yourself a theologian and scold the rest of us should we dare to arrive at our own spiritual insights without permission from the august ranks of you and your colleagues?

creeley wrote: hombre: I'm not interested in how you pigeonhole me....

If you've got an argument with what I say, make it.

Your earlier post (4:10) pigeonholed you. I merely observed and commented on the nature of the hole. As I pointed out (6:46), you offered Christian theology for the moral relativist. Your position is not unique, just incomplete. No other argument was, or is, necessary.

Ann Althouse said..."God no more "made homosexuals" than he "made murderers""

You have no idea what God has done, and acting like you know for the purpose of making a political argument is stupid and possibly blasphemous.

If you really believe in God, why aren't you afraid to say things like that?

God is god.You are free to act.Everything that has ever been, is, or will ever be has already been seen in all it's permutations.That god is infinitely just should give us cause to worry.That god is infinitely merciful should give us cause for joy.Bottom line.Have a cocktail every evening.Work hard not to be a douche.

Synova said...I don't know how relevant being right about the cause is, if the correlation is correct.

So truth isn't important?"Punishment from God" could be taken simply as "consequences."

As it should be precisely because there is a material explanation as to the why the "consequences" occurred.Jump off a cliff and does it matter if it's God who kills you instead of gravity? The rule not to jump off a cliff doesn't magically become a bad rule because no one understands gravity properly.

Don't know about you, but I think it is important for people to know that it is gravity that causes a person to hit the rocks below should you step off a cliff. If people are told that God causes you to fall, some member of the faithful might want to prove their worthiness to God by walking off that cliff thinking God will save them.Sleep around and catch (or pass on) a disease that results in death or sterilization and does it matter if it was God's punishment or microscopic organisms?

Yes it does matter, because it is the truth. Personally, I'd feel rather stupid if I were an M.D. and I told a patient his/her STD infection is due to his/her disobeying God's mating orders, especially when I know it was caused by germs that have no moral agency as they spread their destruction. I can understand how people might not like being told "punishment from God" is the reason someone dies horribly, but if following religious rules saves you from dying, isn't that a good thing?

It's always good to the wise thing, but shouldn't the truth be used to encourage people to act wisely?Our whole society wants to behave as though there is not and never was any actual reason to restrict sexual behavior, *any* sexual behavior, other than hating that someone else is having fun. Free love and all that.

First off, it is not the whole society as discussions pro and con indicate. But yes, attitudes have changed dramatically in the recent past. This, I think, is a function of ever growing numbers of people that don't find religion as a authoritative as it once was. IOW, people don't regard God as real, then it follows that many won't trouble themselves to live up to religious dictates. And the amazing thing is that promiscuity isn't any more "safe" than it ever was. Our modern life almost makes it more destructive than ever before, both destructive to families and to health.

Yes, the risks are always present.

I think traditionalists need to come to terms with the changes in the attitudes of many toward sexual mores. Simply pointing out scriptures or tradition has no bearing on many people any more. It's those people that need to know the material truth regarding risks involved, and invoking bronze age dieties is a non-starter.

UP wrote: I think traditionalists need to come to terms with the changes in the attitudes of many toward sexual mores.

If by "come to terms with" you mean ignore God's law in favor of cultural trends, what is the motivation to do that?

It is not the role of the Christian traditionalist to make scientific arguments which, btw, don't seem to carry any more weight than invoking "bronze age dieties." (See, e.g., http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm - CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009.)

Unknown Pundidt observes that: I think traditionalists need to come to terms with the changes in the attitudes of many toward sexual mores. Simply pointing out scriptures or tradition has no bearing on many people any more. It's those people that need to know the material truth regarding risks involved, and invoking bronze age dieties is a non-starter.

Even straight guys sharing loads up the ass with strangers suffer consequences.

Neither God nor Nature discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Stupid is as stupid does.